judge examines the military's court-martial system which prosecutes 5000 service members annually. ♪ good morning, and welcome to "washington journal." ins reports say the suspect the boston marathon bombings is communicating with authorities. some members of congress have said that immigration reform should be delayed in the wake of last week's bombings. we would like to get your perspectives on this. do you think immigration reform should be put on hold post- boston bombings?

here are the numbers to call -- can also find us online. send us a tweet i writing @cspanwj. or you can join the conversation on facebook, look for www.facebook.com/cspan. our e-mail address is journal@c- span.org. here is the headline in the "washington post" -- we will hear more about what happened yesterday at an

immigration-related hearing. the senate judiciary committee. we will bring that to you in just a moment. the chairman, patrick leahy, chastised just -- chastised some of his gop colleagues by time ast week's attack to comprehensive immigration bill that was introduced last week. ill" -- "the hel we saw some things post-9/11 that were enacted that, if we had a bit more rational time to think it through, perhaps we would not have had some pushback on it. what you think about this? kathleen is our first call from chicago, illinois. , i do not think the bill should be pushed back.

the republicans have gotten one agenda, and that is to try to tear president obama's agenda. why should you relate those two guys to immigration? no, let immigration go through. i hope they have the sense of know-how that when they bring this gun bill back -- they brought the health care bill back -- that they vote right. people in this country are hurting. all these republicans do, let's stop obama. republicans, wake up to rick the 90/10 want gun control. people all around the country want to elect this president and want to get his agenda to help this country. host: we will take a look at the prospects for gun control later on this morning. let's go to virginia, the independent line. caller: i just wanted to say that immigration has long been overdue, and we should not have any reason to put it off any

more than we have. fromnot see the connection boston to immigration. you can never stop anybody that is wanting to do harm. the same thing in connecticut, the newtown shootings, anything like that. it is sporadic, no matter how much legislation you have, over immigration, gun control, anything like that. i do not think we can afford to put it off any longer in what we are ready have. tom in michigan, republican. amler: good morning, i calling on the immigration thing. i had not followed it as closely as i should have in the papers the last couple of months, but let's speed up- the immigration reform process.

legislation passed that will limit where immigrants come from in terms of what they are going to do. these guys that perpetrated this we have yetoston -- to hear how they got in the country, what port they came in , on an airline, did they crawl across the canadian border? let's figure out what they want to do. are a citizen from another country, you want to move from france -- there are laws that say you cannot set up shop there unless you can prove your self-sufficient economically or you're not going to take a job from a french person. host: let's look a little bit more at "the hill" to find out what we know about the suspects in the boston bombing attacks. the bombing was allegedly carried out by chechens who immigrated to the united states.

for a little bit of news, the latest on the suspect in the boston bombings, cnn reports that the surviving suspect has told investigators that his older brother, not any international terrorist group, asked her mind of the deadly cnn is attributing that to a government source. pulmonary interviews with dzhokhar tsarnaev indicate that the two brothers had the classification of self- radicalized jihadists.

has conveyed -- dzhokhar tsarnaev has conveyed to investigators that his brother's motivation was jihaa jihadist p. here is the "washington post" -- the two brothers suspected of bombing the boston marathon appeared to be motivated by their religious faith, but do not appear to be connected to any terrorist group. we are asking you what you think about immigration reform and whether or not it should be delayed in the aftermath of the boston bombings. some members of congress have said that it should. the numbers to call -- let's take a listen to a little

bit of a hearing yesterday. senator schumer talking about this very question. [video clip] >> if you have ways to improve the bill, offer an amendment when we start markup and may, and let's vote on it. i see that particularly to those who are pointing to what happened, the tragedy in boston -- an excuseld say for not doing a bill or delaying it many months. >> i never said that. >> i never said you did, sir. mr. chairman, i do not appreciate -- >> let me finish. we are going to have one of the on this. processes there will be intimate -- a debate in the committee. bill is our next call in

wisconsin, on the independent line. caller: thank you so much for taking my call. that i amo tell you so torn on this subject, but i think we should do a moratorium on all immigration. i think we should cancel all pieces and recall our own citizens from abroad before we get this -- so we can get this all figured out. i know it might take 10 years. honestly, i have given this a lot of thought for a long time. host: when you say get this figured out, what do you mean? what to doure out about terrorism. figure out if any of this is our fault and if there is anything we can do on our end to mitigate a horrible worldwide situation, and if it is not our fault, then try to wrap our arms around this as americans. should be us americans in this country before we figure this out. in pennsylvania, on

the republican line. caller: i totally agree with the last guy. i want to put some perspective and therefore guys who are so much like the roman senate hiding under their tables in the last days of rome as a people who were not assimilating, coming across the river, and refusing to be romanized. history always repeats itself. 60 years ago now in 1953, president eisenhower -- who i think i say is a better american than leahy or mccain -- had a military operation that removed tens of thousands of mexicans by force and drove them to the southern border and release them. 1916, woodrow wilson, a liberal democrat, sent 5000 troops to secure the border after there was a drop of blood, compared to today. that is the history of our country. i've called about this many times. the thing that bothers me is

these old white men like leahy, who is from probably the whitest state in the union, lived in his state whiter than the nation of had the-- he never roadblocks of affirmative action or third world immigration in his way. he went through life. what these old white men like mccain or lindsey graham, they turn around and stick a knife in the back of young white men like me. they turn their compassion outward, not inward. family values start at home. this issue on before because it matters to me as a guy who has been displaced by immigrant illegal labor. you have to be affected by immigration -- you should not be able to comment about it unless you are affected by it. we halted migration from germany 100 years ago because germany was a hornet nest. we halted migration from norway because wisconsin norwegians

were not assimilating. those guys were blonde haired, blue-eyed. he always acted, had a moratoriums's, to digest these people. moratorium year from 1924-65, which is attacked by leftists like obama is some sort of racist things. you've made your point. let's go to sea of tranquility -- "the washington post" has this --

looking at other stories in the news, a new story from "the baltimore sun" -- william is our next call, glendale, maryland, independent. caller: how are you this morning? i could not disagree with more with the last two colors. i am an aesthetic in the technology area. in the technology area. i do not see the difference between immigration legislation that brings in highly skilled

citizens to pay for my retirement when i retire -- to keep this country running, we need to look at a terrorism bill -- terrorism and immigration are different. congress is working now. what's keep them working in passing bills and not stop due to some isolated event. says --tweet from erin we will go to brooklyn, new york, democratic carl -- caller. caller: good morning. just to say that i think immigration should go forward, but there should be e-verfies. -- il tell you the truth could not get through on the republican line -- i have to be conservative -- i notice when i call, i could never get through on the republican line. that is why i called on the democrat line. i'm tired of people saying that republicans are stopping obama's

agenda. am an hispanic woman. in my neighborhood, it is mixed. a lot of people being taken advantage of that are mexican and spanish and low wages. that is not fair. i think immigration should go through. i wish the lefties and democratic people would not say that because we are conservative and republican, we are stopping the president. that is not true. i think c-span has turned left. you should have a little more servitude views -- conservative views. thank you. host: we will take a look at the "washington times" in a minute. lyrical reports on immigration -- politico reports on immigration --

our last caller said she was an hispanic republican, so that is a different perspective than what politico is telling us. here's something from "the washington times" --

we are talking about immigration reform. chris is our next caller from pine hill, new jersey. caller: good morning. my view is we should have immigration reform tomorrow morning, but just not the senators version or even anything that house has cobbled together. what i would like to see his mass deportations, all 11.5 million of them, and confiscate their ill-gotten gains. give them a path back to mexico or wherever they came from, instead of a path to

citizenship. no questions. no arguments. no excuses. no exceptions. get rid of them. they do not belong here. they are not welcome here. they are here illegally. my wife is an immigrant. she didn't the legal way. it cost us thousands of dollars for we had to wait years. she is still not a citizen. she's a legal permanent resident. she has a green card. why should they get a free pass just because they are illegal? host: what do you think about the boston bombing suspects -- they were in the country here illegally, and some republicans are saying that the push for immigration reform should be put on hold as everything is learned that can be learned about what happened in boston -- what do you think about that yet though -- that? caller: i think they should extract all the information they can from him and shoot him in the head. host: what do you think about broader immigration reform, not that man? you said you want to send illegal immigrants out of

the country, and your wife is an immigrant. caller: as far as those two people, i think that is an excuse -- republicans are using it as an excuse to delay it. i'm with them that i do not want the senate version, but that is looking at it at aside of an excuse. i am opposed to the senate bill. senator grassley, and the other -- theyatched on c-span are opposed to it -- they are my heroes, but really, i think it is an excuse. host: ken joins us from florida, on the democratic line. caller: i'm calling from orlando. just food for thought, i think the moratorium should be put on immigration reform. it should last. the for thought, supposed

indians had shut the borders down and close these nations borders down to all of us that were immigrating from other continents and countries -- where would we be as a nation? i think there should be a policy, open door, but it should follow the rules, the theassion, and a letter of law. until we start doing that, we are going to all -- always have these problems. remember, we stopped the flood of clue -- cubans coming from and -- coming to the nation illegally. he stopped that. -- we stopped that. they stopped coming by boats in building boats. how did we stop that? by encouraging the nation to take care of its own.

, wel we start doing that can forget it. host: here are some comments on our facebook page -- you can join the dialogue by looking at our facebook page at www.facebook.com/cspan. you can also send us a tweet by writing @cspanwj. michael writes --

barbara is our next caller, sioux city, iowa. hello, thank you. i would like to comment on this immigration reform. there should not be any immigration reform period. these people are in our country illegally. they need to go back where they came from. it does not matter what race they are, whether they are latino, eastern europe, or wherever -- they need to be deported. they are draining our public assistance programs, taking a jobs from american citizens, and i think they are a major cause of our economic crisis, as well as unemployment. the crime in our nation has increased tenfold with these people. also, i can speak for a fact that when they move into cities

and towns, the towns and cities start deteriorating and that is why i cannot even live in my hometown. they have destroyed it. host: mark in ohio, an independent caller. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i have to agree with the last few callers. we do not need immigration reform. what we need to do is get these people back in their countries, let them fight for their freedom like we did, and obtain it and adjust manner, -- in a just manner, instead of coming over here and taking our jobs. all these old white guys in the senate, they have no interaction with these people, unless they are cutting their grass. because itstop it is not doing our country any good at all.

host: we're focusing this morning on some calls by republicans to delay immigration reform in light of the boston bombings. what you think about that angle? caller: there we go. if they were not allowed here, it never would have happened. host: here is a story about senator rand paul from "business insider." he wants congress to delay immigration reform over the boston bombings -- senator mike lee, republican of utah, was at the heritage foundation yesterday, and he was

asked to respond to senator paul's comments. [video clip] i do not necessarily agree that it needs to be put on hold for that. i do think we need immigration reform. i think it needs to proceed. rand paul and i agree on most things, but as to the particular timing of the consideration of immigration legislation, i would have to talk to rant about that, i do not not see the need to not hold committee hearings to examine this legislation that has been put forward. what happened in boston this week is yet another reason for us to examine our current immigration system and figure out how to best inform it. host: senator lee yesterday at this -- at the heritage foundation. "washington times" covered his talk and said --

rand paul, senator of kentucky, who we started talking about a moment ago gets a profile in the "wall street journal. eet journal" -- the story says he is try to make himself more attractive to voters. looking at a couple of other stories in the news, gun control, one of our first caller's this morning brought the the question of whether gun control is going anywhere after a bill died in the senate last week. "the usa today" reports --

from "the new york times" -- a photograph of senator mark begich, democrat, who paid little cost for defined president obama's push for gun control. a couple of other stories. canada finds two suspects and an al qaeda rail terror plot. from "the usa today" --

the alleged plot is not connected to the boston marathon bombing attack, according to officials. other stories in the news, a school in west, texas is resuming. this is the town hit by the fertilizer plant blast. you can see an image there. president obama plans to attend a memorial service on thursday for victims in west. by tsa and the plan airlines, it's gotten a lot of questioning from various groups, andht attendant unions such -- the tsa plan to let knives on planes, and it has been delayed. this is gotten pushed back after weeks of public backlash from lawmakers. that was supposed to go into

effect this week, but not now. we are asking you this morning about immigration reform and whether it should be delayed in the aftermath of the boston bombings. dave is our next caller in wayne, pennsylvania, on the republican line. caller: good morning. , i look at it like this -- i do not know that it needs to be on hold based upon this incident, but i was watching " washington journal" yesterday, on you had michael walden the council of foreign relations. he brought up a good point, that after 2011 -- 2001, there was some scrutiny of muslim nations because that was our concern the time since we -- notoncern about profiling of bombers -- we knew where they had essentially come from. there is a big push to drill

down on a lot of the latinos, but i do not really consider them much of the problem. of the extremist countries known for ties to terrorism to be the ones subject to scrutiny insofar as getting into this country for any reason, whether it is wanting to come to the country to live here, wanting to work, what have you, but i totally believe at this point to preserve our survival that we need to drill down on those who are the problems. host: why do you think the dialogue is shifting away from what you think the priorities should be? weler: i feel as though have changed. people have changed over the years. we have become more accepting. i believe we have become more --epting of people from

especially from the latino countries -- they are here to work, for the most part, they are good people. i just think people see that little bit more. that has been my interpretation. someone from arizona or new mexico or texas where they are having local problems, they may see differently, that i look at it from my standpoint as far as the people that i have met and, cross. come accresoss.nd we need to make sure that people who love ties to extremism should not come in this country at all. n.o.i. willing -- not be able to able to call back, but i wanted to make a comment about the classification of the brothers as enemy combatants -- i do not believe they are enemy combatants. i believe they are serial killers. they killed these people with the intent of killing them.

they killed people they do not know. the killed more than one person. fallseve that essentially into the category of serial killer. my opinion, maybe they should be tried in a regular criminal court, civilian court, and not necessarily in a federal court. host: we will run that by our guests. we will be talking about this " ande "enemy combatant what the white house decision, the announcement that they would not be trying the boston -- an boston bomber labeling him as an enemy to patents. we will look at that in about 15 minutes greater we will give you -- give your question to our guest. edward alden joined us yesterday on "the washington journal." you can find that on our website. we talked about the boston bomber's impact on immigration. this is a continuing discussion we are having right now with you. we like to get your perspective

on it. right is our next call from maryland, democrat. caller: good morning. first, i want to say hello to everybody that is watching c- span. i have several points -- the first is there is a lot of bluster. that is political bluster. i notice it is usually the republicans that use terrorism and fear to move the political initiatives. that clearly -- that has been the case so far. on towards immigration, it seems dream of areagan's war against drugs has flourished in mexico. poor mexico, you know? their entire political outlook

has been framed by this authoritarian, ruthless, dream of not having drugs in the world. it has gone nowhere. ?hat is the political backlash it is more the sense of all these people coming here to work to make money because they cannot make money in mexico, they cannot make money anywhere else, and then you start the 1% and how they frame the world. i forgot what my point was. stymieing? to time he an ?- tie me in host: thank you.

a couple tweets -- about hisaller talked perspective on the legacy of president ronald reagan. we will be turning our attention to another former president this wek, armor president torch bush. it be dedicated at southern methodist university. "the washington post" has a new story -- you can watch the dedication ceremony of the george w bush residential library and museum -- presidential library and museum thursday morning at 11:00 a.m. eastern time. you'll bring that to you on c- span 3 and also c-span.org. for the early risers on thursday, before "washington journal" kicks off, we will bring you a conversation with

the former first couple. we are asking you what you think about the delay in immigration reform, if there should be a delay in immigration reform in the aftermath of the boston bombings. let's go to north dakota, valley city, rick, a republican. caller: hello, i would like to talk about the border and why it is at the rio grande. the border was up above 54, moving above the 54th parallel. under dubious circumstances, they started a war with mexico and push them across the rio grande. if you go to the southwest, many of those mexicans understand the , and very few americans are aware of that. they resent that.

that southwest was theirs. until the war. i think that has a lot to do with it. host: what do you think about -- weigh in on this question about whether or not immigration reform, conversations about changing the nation's immigration system, should be push for now because of the off forombings -- pused boston bomb of the coston ings. caller: my biggest concern is the cheap labor. i have seen a mexicans come in and ruin the construction industry. starting in the 1980s, mexicans began to push jobs out of the black hills. some of them are good jobs, unionized jobs. i do not see -- with this

immigration, i think it would get worse. host: ingrid, brooklyn, the democrats line. theyr: i do not think should delay it. host: why not? ok, for the most part -- i have not been here that long have been following on a lot of things, even before i moved here, right? most people keep forgetting that america is built on the backs of immigrants. if we were just here, it would just be native americans. and we have all the stuff that tohave now -- people need understand that. those two guys that came in, they did what? it is two. yes, it did make a big impact on our country. they killed innocent people.

none of them knew them. that if weunderstand have immigration reform, then we can get a look on all the people coming in. they need to go by the law in terms of investigating, to their investigations, and everybody illegal saying, immigrants, everything is focused on latinos -- there are so many other people here illegally apart from latinos. you have russian illegal immigrants. whether or not there are as many as mexicans -- those people come in here and they work. host: where are you from? caller: i am from jamaica. i am the owner of a small business. we contribute. i have only been here three years. host: thanks for your call. gerald writes in "the wall street journal" --

we are asking you what you think about immigration reform and whether or not it should be delayed in the aftermath of the boston bombings. i'm republicans have called for it. robert joins us from brooklyn, an independent. on the subject of deporting illegal aliens, it comes up that we cannot deport 11 million people.

how many people can we deport? many illegal aliens can we deport deport, and why have they not been deported? host: what do you think about that? why is that important to ask yo? caller: deporting 11 million is impossible -- to do not care if they cannot solve the problem completely, maybe we can solve it are surely by deporting 50% of them were 35% during even if we deport only 2 million, why should we not do for them? they are here illegally. in brooklyn.ert here's what bill writes on twitter -- bill is tweaking -- tweeting

with one of our other followers. caller from kalamazoo, michigan, a democrat. caller: i am in favor of going through with the immigration bill. for one thing, people seem to forget that some of the have beenterrorists like timothy mcveigh, the young man that shot out the school and thembine -- in columbine, guy that shot congresswoman .iffords there have been many shootings and so forth in our country from people that have been born and raised here. who just committed this horrific, horrible crime in boston were raised here. the one young man who is still alive came here when he was two years old.

, at two years of age, he really was raised as an american citizen here. so culture had to do, being assimilated into the culture, i would have to say that he was. not that i condone what he did, but i am saying that it was not just that he was an immigrant. show us thatports he was about nine years old when he came to the country. is that change your opinion? caller: the older brother seems to be the one that was linked to the strong religious -- according to what was on the news yesterday, anyway -- that he was exposed somehow to a , andal religious fever that can happen to anyone. if you look at some of the people in our country who are

far right -- i'm not talking about the everyday, ordinary person who is a christian -- you anyway, ifot -- you look at, the crazies on the far right that say if you are not like them, that there is something wrong with you, and let's get out our guns and sho .t, that is not cool that is not the american way. that is not following our justice system. host: let's going to bonnie, republican in yukon, oklahoma. hello. caller: i think they should delay the immigration bill. in fact, they should kill it out. our country is overrun by these people. can you hear me? i think they should kill the whole thing. think it do you

should be delayed specifically related to what happened in boston? caller: not necessarily that. the reason obama wants this bill 2ssed is so he can import million more muslims. i wish somebody would go back and find the speech he made that they are going to import 2 million more muslims to this country. host: let's look at some comments on twitter -- with a different opinion -- the white house announced yesterday that the boston marathon bombing suspect

will not be treated as an enemy combatant, despite calls him some members of congress to do so. we will learn more about what exactly an enemy combatant is. iran, the secretary of defense has put forward an overhaul of the u.s. court-martial system. that is used to prosecute servicemembers accused of crimes. we will hear more from the judge advocate general of the army. we'll be right back. ♪ >> the museum is meant to help the visitor relive the first eight years of the 21st century. the museum explains the decision-making process that i went through as president. we hope the museum inspires people to serve, serve their -- serve their country.

we did not want to be a school. we wanted to be a do-tank. i do not know if there is a lesson there. i do know -- laura and i decided to go in a different direction with the component from which programs will emerge. >> watch the dedication ceremony under george w. bush residential using a library from southern methodist university in dallas thursday morning at 11:00 eastern on seized and 3, c-span radio, and at c-span.org. tune in earlier for a conversation with the former first couple. one of the problems when the judges are appointed in the public defenders is that the areic defenders' jobs reliant on their approval. judges are judged on their efficiency, often, how fast they process cases, quickly they get

through the docket. they will want a public defender that goes along and get .long and does their bidding that is a real challenge. in new orleans for a long time, the system was also that one public defender was assigned to one courtroom and the same judge. they were always arguing before the same judge. the problem with that is that they were then trading clients, in a way. like, ok, my private-paying let me spend a little time and take his case to trial, i will persuade this client to plead guilty. there was this trade-off going, you could cash in your favor is, and make for a very corrupt system down there. afford ancannot attorney, one will be provided for you. karen hooper on the right to free representation, sunday ds" onat 9:00 on "afterwardor

c-span2. "washington journal" continues. hina we are joined by shamsi. we wanted to have you here to talk about enemy combatants, what they are, why that definition is significant. he saw white house announcing yesterday that they do not plan to treat the boston marathon bombing suspects as an enemy combatant. let's take a step back and talk about what the term means. guest: the roots of the term come from the bush administration which sought to create a category of people that a thought violated -- that it fought violated the laws of war. what is less important than what the specific term means -- for those who are interested, the current definition is in the

military commissions act of 2009 -- less important than the specific term is what others were trying to do when they said that the boston bombing suspect should be treated as an enemy combatant. they wanted him to be subjected to military custody in military interrogation and denied a lawyer. here, that shows you how far that argument goes astray. editorialork times" page was right to call it "reckless." there is no legal basis to say this is part of war. to hold somebody responsible militarily would be both unconstitutional and unnecessary. host: what does the term mean to you? guest: it means you are not imposing a criminal justice framework on a suspect who saw it as an act of war.

what happened in boston was an act of terrorism, was an act of war, so you call them a spade a spade. let me make the most important point i can make -- enemy combatant is one way to achieve something, what lindsey graham, kelly i goayotte are trained to achieve -- our priority should these to punish perpetrators, not to prosecute them, but to rehabilitate them in our main purpose -- not to rehabilitate them. our main purpose should be getting information on future bombings. can we get that information from them? where can we tell them that he has the right to remain silent, that we are going to remain ignorant of the information he has, even if that means other people will be killed in terrorist attacks in the future.

this is a decision we made. i think it is a mistaken decision to say we will remain ignorant and we are going to let him to have the right to remain silent, aside from all the prosecution, all the other issues. host: here are some headlines. officials say the boston bombing suspect apparently motivated by religion, and no terrorist group affiliation. from cnn -- does that change your opinion? no, i have great respect for the media, i spent many years with journalist. they get things wrong. how do we know yet though can you tell me? can you tell me who trained them yet though who taught them how to make a bomb? who radicalize them? if you're going to tell me that we know everything we need to know, i have a lot of questions for you.

this is what reporters do. we had a lot running up to this. again, i was here for more than 20 years. journalists get things wrong. we do not have all the information. we have somebody in custody who can tell us everything if we can get him to cooperate. instead, we have said, lawyer up. prosecutors could say, you're going to get the death penalty, we can treat you a little bit better. you may get some leniency for the crimes he committed, but we really need to know everything you know. besides that, what happens is he tells us nothing. if you think we know everything we need to know about terrorism and these guys and what they did and who they are connected with , i got to say, i think you're wrong. host: what is your response. -- your response? there is soest:

much they're based on speculation. all the information is going to develop. lawuld like to finish -- enforcement which helps attract the people of boston has ample experience, tremendous experience in putting together a federal terrorism case. there have been over 400 terrorism prosecutions in the federal courts to have proceeded effectively, safely, and securely in the years since 9/11. -- whatng down a path the senator said was they recognize that the boston bombing suspect is a u.s. citizen who would be entitled to a federal criminal trial -- all that would be done by this terrible hypothetical by resorting to the military -- remember, in our country, we do not look to the military to conduct law-enforcement, we trust in and look to law enforcement which has all the tools it needs -- here, all that would have been achieved would have been legal challenges, because military detention would

have been unconstitutional, and possibly jeopardizing the federal case that has been and will be put together. host: let's take a listen to white house press secretary jay carney announcing the news yesterday regarding this enemy combatant status. [video clip] anhe will not be treated as enemy combatant. we will prosecute this terrorist through our civilian system of justice under u.s. law. united states citizens cannot be tried in military commissions. host: that is the word from the white house. a decision has been made. it is moot. i agree. i do think it is the wrong decision. i think there is something being confused by a lot of folks. dzhokharre to name tsarnaev an enemy combatant, that does not necessarily mean he goes to it now -- to gitmo. you can name him an enemy combatant for purposes of interrogation.

after the interrogation is completed, you can transfer him back to the criminal justice system. all that happens is the information you've gotten from him during the time he is an enemy combatant would not be admissible in a court of law. you do not use it for that. you do not use it for criminal prosecution. use it for intelligence. terrorismunravel that may be ongoing and learn more about terrorist groups that are in this country and elsewhere plotting against us. i've got to tell you, it is a red herring to say, i do not want a military tribunal. by the way -- guest: no one is saying that. heard others say, this is all about getting him to gitmo. the priority should be to get information from him. or should there -- there could be other ways to do it. the public safety exception allows -- host: we will get to that --

guest: what this is about his most importantly is whether we get the information, life-saving information that dzhokhar , ornaev probably has whether we say, we just do not need to know. host: we will get to the public safety exception and a little bit. i do want to get your impression -- is it possible to have a temporary use of the military combatant term, get the information needed, and then reenter the criminal justice system yet thoug? , the supreme court said you cannot hold people militarily for the purposes of interrogation. this is a legal, factual, and policy nonstarter. it was a mistake by the bush administration, and now accepted by people who do not recognize how far astray the bush administration went when it sought to place civilians in military custody, deny them their legal rights, and it led

to a process that we now regret and recognize as wrong. here is what is important -- the administration has made the right decision to go forward and treat this terrorism suspect as a federal criminal suspect. now we expect law enforcement to use all of the tools that are lawfully at their disposal to investigate this crime, as they have hundreds of other terrorism crimes, including the 1993 bombings, including the oklahoma bombings, and what we cannot do is somehow say, this is so different that we are going to overturn our constitution, we are going to risk jeopardizing a prosecution, and we are going to violate values that we hold strongly and dear. we went down that path, and we came to regret it. we are doing the right thing now. let's go forward. host: we will get your response and a moment. let's reintroduce our guest.

hina shamsi is with the aclu. is president of the foundation of defense of democracies. it was an organization started after 9/11. here are the numbers to call if you would like to talk about enemy combatant status -- kerry on the line from missouri, an independent color. let's go to the lines and see what our callers have to say. caller: i just wanted to make a comment -- i read a report that these bombs that were used in boston were a little bit more -- even though they were crude, in some ways crude, and how they were made or used -- that they were a little bit more sophisticated in the mechanism

for triggering them. i know they do not know everything about these bombs yet, but i understood that when -- people who generally make these sometimes may have their hands blown off when they are making them. host: can you respond? guest: i think there's a lot of supposition and speculation in the media. we have to wait for the facts to was done, out what what the bombs were, how they were made and so on. the important thing to recognize

extremist violence using of differe nds host: and we can , trust in our federal criminal justice system to investigate that and to appropriately prosecute and punish that. guest: the caller makes a good point and that is that we should be careful whether supposition the but we can have working hypotheses. we have a bomb with a measure of sophistication. it is very difficult for anyone to make a bomb the use of cookers and ball bearings to make many tiny through at would slice people's limbs, the detonator training. the hypothesis has to be they didn't do it on their own.

we don't know who trained them. we want investigators to find out if they could find they were able to ask the question and guns, comes from a ariety of sources, answered thy not be possible now that the suspect has been told he has the right to remain silent. had one caller earlier said are these serial killers? dismissive t to be with that word but serial kille killers? our working hypothesis must be that they are terrorists. difference is a terrorist hats a political motivation. page look on the youtube of one of the suspects you see jihadist arious videos. one that talks about an army coming out of central arab to an ancient islamic and thesend non-arabs

ere chechens from the caucus, they would have better riders penultimate nd the infidels in t the an area now lebanon and israel syria. we can assume this is the kind of thing that inspired him and act of hat this was an terrorism, not an act of a ouple of deranged kids or serial murderers. if you don't think this is i think you are self-deluding. uest: the suspect has been charged with crimes of terrorism and we will look to see how that on working not hypotheses based on supposition law ctual information enforcement finds. about nt to make a point treating terrorism as an act of senator graham and others

would have wanted to do. that they have that they have tried to push for years is the idea that we are in a global war, hat we're not just in a war in afghanistan, but in a war in the ack yards of boston and there is no legal basis to believe that nor is there a factual basis to believe that. what we must do here is avoid hypotheses and speculation that would lead us alreadyath that we have gone down in the past and that e can and must reject as improper and ineffective and unnecessary. he federal government has done the right thing. when ints that somehow suspects have right to counsel miranda warnings causes them to stop cooperating with law enforcement is not

facts and studies. and ct, d.o.j. officials senior law enforcement officials 90% of the ou 80% to time in sophisticated cases when defense counsel get involved to help emhis more and icit more information allow the case to go forward. there have been multiple cases 9/11 that have been prosecuted, investigated and prosecuted by law enforcement resulted in more information available to law lawful tools ing without needing to violate rights. senator mentioned graham. he pushed against the decision the combatant status. [video clip] >> i hope the congress will at this case and look at our laws and come to the to.lusion that i have come we are at war. for a going to be at war

very long time and we have to have the tools to defend values.es within our one of those tools is the ability to question people about future attacks to gather intelligence for national purposes without benefit of counsel. the information will never be of law against the suspect. it will be used to protect us. the last thing in the world we should do in the times in which our ability limit to gather intelligence to the criminal justice system. essence you will have turned over the intelligence gathering process to the accused their lawyer. host: senator lindsey graham to usethe case yesterday the enemy combatant use for the bombing suspect. we go to anna, a republican from texas. caller: it is diana. hat i have never heard on the

media and what i don't understand is the difference etween the laws that we are arguing about today against the the united states citizen has always had if they are a traitor to the united states. is the -- which does include the death penalty. why aren't these u.s. citizens onsidered traitors to the united states and what we believe in and what we have , because there certainly is, as one of you .aid, political associations trying to all of this define what a terrorist is. guest: i think you are quite that these young men who were allowed into the country, got a good schools, one scholarship, turns against their fellow citizens after one of

citizenship, the other was pending, are traitors. to prove that r they are mass murderers and thatrs than it is to prove they are traitors. for convenience that is true. very long s been a time since anybody was tried as a traitor in the united states. i'm not sure it is a good idea that we have given that up but we have. i think from the prosecutor's point of view we can go for the death penalty for what they have done. need to try to prove they betrayed their country have. they clearly host: let's talk about the public safety exception invoked arrest. what do you think about that? how does the aclu come down on that? guest: we start off with the -- that miranda voluntaryk to prevent

and aercive interrogation core civil liberty safe guard with constitutional weight. a supreme court has rocked limited exception to the use of which is the public safety exception and thinking there is -- but when demand of public safety require people to be questioned without their rights read law enforcement may be able to do so. when the obama administration going to that it was use the public safety exception, might be able you to do that but recognize that it .s limited and narrow so, now i think that might have been invoked. we don't know. that is one thing we don't actually currently know now. how this has proceeded. what is important here is that counsel and has has gone before a judge.

look to the system to ork, which means we expect prosecutors to proceed fairly defensee their case and lawyers to zealously perform their duty. facts look to see what they find and architects they make. host: how different is the safety exception that can be invoked in the first phase after detention of a suspect, that different from looking at military or enemy status?t guest: the main difference the ublic safety exception is very narrow and limited in time. how not exactly clear much. i'm not sure if it was used by the obama administration, but if there was not enough time for a thorough interrogation of want from ou would somebody involved in an act of terrorism to know everything you need. host: what is the mission of that public safety exception?

find out if there are bombs someplace else? uest: if there is an immediate threat and head it off. host: what is your definition of an immediate threat? something like looking to see if there are additional bombs in place. what is important here is law were saying over the weekend there is no immediate threat. will be up rward it to the lawyers to determine the facts that played out and we it from there. host: cliff may, let's get to immediate threat. does your definition match up to broader? guest: i think it is the ticking time bomb the immediate threat. i don't want to speak for graham or others but we would like to have it possibility if there is a time bomb. let's finds out. miranda was put in place so you coercion and false confessions under pressure.

that.n't want to have but you can prevent that in other ways. you can videotape the proceeding. but you also want to have a more thorough investigation because methods to know the that are being used if one of as brothers went to chechnya we think he did and was trained cells by whom, by what was he told to come back any time or you will get a phone do it? were there people he was in touch with here that may not do may do immediately but something in three months and people will be killed? i'm absolutely for constitutional protections but i justice robert jackson said the constitution is chooseuicide pact and to not to know is wrong. i want to raise one other thing. senator graham was right in this. to say there is no war going on mindness.

osama bin laden declared a war. and a jihad is said to take place. various iranian rulers have said there is a global war against forces of arrogance, that would be us. nd i would submit to you that brothers and fort perceiveter and others themselves not as criminals but as combatants in a war. to say they are not combatants, they say they are they are not but we will treat it as criminal justice problem is wrong. combatants even though they don't wear uniforms and carry weapons. means they are combatants who are violate being the laws hat makes them terrorists and makes them unlawful enemy combatants. they are enemies. response before we go back to the phones. taking?risk worth

if there is a global war, a war that has been brought shores is itto our worth taking? guest: there is no global war we don't let individuals decide that for us. war that is ctual taking place in afghanistan. tkpwhrebglobal jihadist movement. f we let individuals make that etermination why not let right wing supremists who killed about 00 americans in 2012 make that determination for us. opposed to common criminals should be investigated and based on that investigation prosecuted to the fullest extent law.e there have been many who made grandiose claims about wanting to be in a war. how that ends up getting decided is based on facts on the ground

based on law and facts, not n supposition or on the grandiose claims of people who would like to be bigger than they are. hina shamsi with the aclu a national security project and cliff may president of foundation for defense of democracies. writes a weekly column and ontributes often to national review online, town hall.com among other publications. to t of folks want to talk you. charles from woodbridge, virginia. republican. go ahead. i'mer: i'm a republican and an american obviously and my that is that i believe [inaudible] [inaudible]. host: we are losing you. say it again. caller: i'm sorry. i believe that the administration made the right call on this one.

american citizen. whether he was born here or american , he is an citizen. i think what the slippery slope piercing that for lack of a better term, that an american being citizen that is a deterioration because you can make the case to terrorist.ng did ise washington, d.c. you never knew if you were the that is the ecause affinity of terrorism. about the is a tweet same thing. can an american citizen be considered and enemy combatant? absolutely. it goes back to the civil war war ii.orld killed t barack obama one in the wilds of yemen. if you affiliate yourself with and go to war against american citizens and willfully on

behalf of a movement or an enemy then you can be considered an enemy combatant. if in world war ii you went to you are noti forces an enemy combatant? of course you are. host: hina shamsi. it is true u.s. citizens can take up arms against the united states and then they what is called understood belligerents.r the problem here that we are extending and s expanding the laws of war far beyond what is constitutionally permitted under the laws themselves. charles was exactly right. what the suspect is accused of terrorism. if we think of what timothy was done in --at mcveigh did or what was done in

bombing, we ark idn't treat those tragedies as acts of war. we appropriately treated them as had to be ts that investigated, prosecuted and appropriately punished. we had an american citizen who was killed on the orders of president obama. commit a ent obama crime by doing that, violate the constitution by doing this? actually, we have a lawsuit in which we are seeking to get answers from the about what on standards they used around alaki when they killed as well as his 16-year-old son, boy born in denver, who was wrongdoing.d of any one issue this debate encapsulate is how far does the of war armed conflict paradigm go? our view is that it has to be on the facts on the ground when you are in an armed the laws not based on

the united states helped write and it is in our national interests to enforce. we don't have to treat nor we nor can we lawfully every act of terrorism and every warrior.th a bomb as a that is the bottom line here, have is it the laws of war a purpose but so also do the law and criminal justice and we cannot replace the entire justice paradigm with an overbroad unnecessary paradigm.tional guest: so your -- host: we have to get more calls a story in the "new york times" and questions no miranda for suspect. officials said federal authorities invoked a public afety exception to standard criminal procedures and questioned dzhokhar tsarnaev the ut telling him he had right to remain silent it learn if he knew of remaining active threats.

felt satisfied no threat existed a magistrate his bedsideought to on monday and he was informed of charges against him in the presence of a lawyer. from tusk also, alabama. independent line. caller: good morning. i'm a little confused as to how came to be warning used the way it is. your rights are not conveyed by warning. you have them under the constitution whether you get the warning or not. if, in the appen absence of getting the warning, he would invoke his rights and not going to speak to you. i want a lawyer? you.: thank guest: i think ralph is right, that the constitutional right is the one against a excepti involuntary exception. our courts have said the theguard that helps protect

rights is the miranda warning. what we have been talking about when the circumstances might exist that the public safety apply.on might our concern had been that the obama administration would be too preting them far broadly. in the w, and i know "new york times" story the public safety exception had been invoked. extent that was proper or not we don't know. but now that the suspect has toyers it will be up to them be able to ascertain the facts and obtain the information and take it.ee where they guest: the miranda warning is a suspect is sure informed of his or her rights the right to lar remain silent and have an the fifth ans it is amendment right this you cannot you at would you say -- can't incriminate yourself.

t is against self-incrimination. if you have a public safety xception or an enemy combatant status you are saying we will preserve that fifth amendment that nothing you say would self-incriminate will be used against you. separate. kept in a case lake this you could -- ike there you don't need a confession, you have so much evidence so you protect the self-incrimination and you can do this even with the public safety exception. federal official said he admitted to a role in the during the exempted questions. whether it could be admitted murky. it would have to be upheld by a judge who determined it was invoke and rule if the closely to public safety conditions and whether it needed given video and other evidence against mr. tsarnaev and his better

was killed. to finish that thought, hina what is the main mission of that moment? that that ter evidence may not be able to be a later nst him in court? there are times reporting they may not need it with other evidence. does that change your perspective? guest: no, because my perspective is based on the the right and why it exists. nd that there not be made exceptions this go beyond what is permissible. wrong and use it is may jeopardize prosecutions going forward. i'm not going to speculate more what happened here and what didn't happen here, whether it was proper or improper. there is more information to ome out and now that the case is in the hands of the federal efenders representing the defendant it is now up to them to determine how to proceed. from a republican

baltimore. go ahead, jay. host: i'm a soldier and some of on the program today deeply disturbs me. think the discussion about miranda is sue purpo superfluou. some say it deter arrives from the fifth amendment and not from he warning and given the previous of it i don't think there's a person who doesn't know they have a right to remain silent. to think just because this young and as very intelligent educated didn't know he had the ight to remain silent because he was not given the miranda is silly. he fundamental issue is the paradigm in which we treat people in this instance facts as attorney from the aclu point outs and i have to point out i'm huge fan of the aclu but i have to agree. citizen on merican

american soil and to strip him of constitutional rights is preposterous. the supreme court has spoken to this after the civil war and when the courts habeas n the right of corpus couldn't be suspended. 'm a soldier and when you misuse the laws of war you endanger people like me on the battlefield. there are instances when combatants.re enemy this is not one of them. about no one is talking depriving anybody of constitutional rights. the miranda warning says you amendment right. if the information you provide, information this may save lives prevent terrorist acts in the future, can't be used not in you, you are danger of self-incrimination. used it would is still be habeas corpus right.

so what we are saying and what he is saying and i think it is rong there is no such thing as global jihadist movement. i think the evidence of that is we will treat d somebody who commits an act of brutal terrorism as a criminal them to lawyer up and say don't say a word, information,hem any we will deal later and i think i think this is illful blindness and reckless in regard to the people who may foruture.ctims in the guest: responding to the caller, i think what you are saying is i hear it t because from other people in the military. a purpose. war have if we unlawfully seek to expand that purpose we harm only armed forces, ur who are legitimately carrying in limited nflict particular areas in afghanistan.

and the constitutional right would have been violated here had we held the defendant in military custody would have een all of the rights to ounsel, the right not to be questioned involuntarily and i think the caller is exactly say we must understand that the laws of war have a this is an act of suspected terrorism and our dealnal justice system can with that for a crime that was on atted by a u.s. citizen .s. soil and alleged to be committed. host: here are some tweets. nyone placing a bomb is an enemy to citizens. they are terrorists.

did see them charged -- e, the surviving brother -- charged with weapons of mass destructi destruction. ow does that influence or affect how he should be treated? guest: it has no effect on that. definition of weapons of mass destruction is a very broad statute and there is no impact on treatment there. will be for the federal government to prove its case. i have no nothing further. birmingham, alabama. a democrat. was his son traveling with him when he was killed? make a comment. i want to ask that first. ost: give it all it us because

we might lose you on the line. the young man should be tried as an american citizen and [inaudible]. i don't think he is an enemy became a because he in 2011.zen so he should be tried as a u.s. citizen. but if he was committing acts of and president barack obama smoked him out he should have been and he should not have his son's in harm's way. i'm an american citizen. heart to know that we would be terrorized in our let ry by people that we come in here as immigrants and immigration st reform, trust me. i'm an african-american and i understand it. when we get people that want o kill us i'm sorry rb, that is

necessary. have great day. host: hina shamsi, she says alaki was putting his son in harm's way. about that?think guest: i think that the son had -- well, facts that we know show he had no contact with his father. he had again out looking for his father and didn't know where he was. e was killed by a drone strike when he was eating -- host: one last question for both of you. clifford may? tsest: we have preceden sides. we use military tribunals and criminal courts for terrorists

on american soil and abroad. there is a debate about which is better. probably ben appropriate in various situations for the time being. military tribunals have not been terribly well designed. i'm not saying you should never use courts to try terrorists. you should try to get as much information as you can. if we are refusing to get information by not asking questions of people when we can , we're making a big mistake and seeds.sewing the host: why is it important that

you feel it was a crime? guest: that tells us all lot about what the aclu tells us about the various methods by the bush administration and the obama administration. drone are among the tools. if this is another method of fighting terrorism -- guest: you can look at our website. there is a great deal of work in this area. somese of force in circumstances may be permitted when there is a threat. permissible. when those boundaries are expanded, it would be unlawful.

we think the government has done the right thing. has, the federal government done the exact right thing by crimeng this as a federal that has to be investigated. . want to hone in on this the military is somehow better than our intelligence professionals and other agencies. i think it does them a great disservice to imply that. havenforcement, the fbi their role in other areas. was a to confuse the two terrible mistake under the bush

administration. obamaa good thing the administration is not making that mistake now. with the aclu.si thank you so much. clifford may, president of the foundation for defense of democracies. column.s a weekly thank you to you as well. the u.s. court- martial system. hagele secretary chuck has called for an overhaul. but first a news update from c- span radio. says the u.s. and

israel need to ensure their alliance is "closer than ever." prime minister not to know -- think the obama administration. chuck hagel is now heading onto jordan and saudi arabia. tax-free shopping on the internet will be the focus of debate. states can only require stores to collect sales tax if the store has a physical presence in that state. the senate voted to take up the bill, which could pass as early as this week. the senate coverage on c-span2.

homeland security secretary janet napolitano will be the sole witness. she was scheduled to appear last week. live coverage of the hearing in just under an hour on c-span radio and on c-span. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. [video clip] >> the museum is meant to help a visitor relive the first eight years of the 21st century. the museum explains the decision-making process that i went through as president. and we hope the museum inspires people to serve, to serve their community or their country in some way. we really did not want to be a school. we wanted to be a do tank. i don't know if there is a lesson there. i do know that laura and i

decided to go in a different direction with the -- apart from the museum with a component from which programs would emerge. >> watch the dedication ceremony of the george w. bush presidential library and museum from southern methodist university in dallas live thursday morning at 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3, c-span radio, and c-span.org. at 6:20 a.m. eastern on c-span for a conversation with the former first couple. >> "washington journal" continues. ost: colonel lisa windsor, thank you so much for being with us. we wanted to get your perspective on the military court-martial system. guest: the military court- martial is the military's criminal court.

you cannot file for bankruptcy or get a divorce. it prosecutes service members on the universal code of military justice, which is the military penal code. host: there is a story in "the new york times." host: what does the pentagon say all the concerns? guest: it is a good idea to look at the system every now and then to see if any improvements can be made. convene a 30 overturned a sentence.

the camphene authority had that kind of power. case. a sexual assault i think there is a big focus on the structure of the court- and in howtem sexual offenses are tried in the system. host: here are the phone numbers to call about the court-martial system. republicans, 202-737-0002. democrats, 202-737-0001. 202-628-0205. retired and4 for active members of the military. -- what isauthority"

that? guest: the individual with the power to order an individual to face a criminal trial. this is generally a general .fficer commanders have disciplinary authority. this is the basis, the fundamental of the military system. the ability of the commanders to discipline. cohesion ands unit survivability. theof the opinion that authority is in the right place. whether it it is at the right level, that is something we may have to work out.

that is the service i served in come the convene authority cannot approve a punitive discharge. you could receive a bad conduct discharge or a dishonorable discharge. go up tomy, it has to the secretary of the army. withholdanted to authority to approve any portion of a sentence, it has the power to do that. oft: talk about the basics the court-martial system. thus an alleged crime have to happen on military property? guest:no. that was a case in 1997

defied the service connection. inike the civilian system, the military, jurisdiction follows the individual, wherever they happen to commit the crime. it is concurrent jurisdiction with the state, in most instances. the state has an interest. the military brings people into the state. they commit offenses. the state has the first call whether to prosecute and offense. most of the time they turn that over to the military and say, " you deal with it." i think that's the right thing to do.

-- like the civilian court, you have been accused of committing an offense. you go through a determination with the commanders in concert with their legal advisers about what level is appropriate to punish that individual. three of levels of a court- two i would highest consider to be trials with a judge. there is a jury. you have attorneys arguing both sides. to freesed is entitled representation by a military judge advocate attorney.

the trial itself goes on very much the same as you would see if you went down to crumble district court. you have the purely military crimes. -- unless it is something very egregious, aiding the enemy, thing akin to the bradley manning case -- you rarely see those types of offenses going to a court- martial. muchyou're seeing is very the same types of offenses that you see tried within the state, the violent crimes. host: we are talking about the court-martial system.

our guest is lisa windsor and sir it as an army judge advocate general from 1988-2011. she is now a practicing attorney. chuck hagel is looking to overhaul the court-martial system. host: here is what the defense say.tary had to

host: tell us more about what happened with lieutenant colonel james wilkerson. how was he able to change what happened to him? , to : this is authorized essentially grant clemency to include overturning the sentence. happen.ever seen it this is the first time that anybody i knew heard of this happening. i think the main criticism of this instance -- i heard by rumors that they received information that led them to elieve that perhaps the

outcome had not been correct. but that is for the appellate system to deal with. system ifn appellate someone receives jail time. you have an automatic review. appeal to the can service judge advocate general who has the ability to overturn a conviction. was there a fraud perpetrated on the court? there are avenues that could have been taken and for whatever reason were not. maryland.y from caller: good morning. perhaps you could address to what extent any military

members give up certain rights as a citizen, chest double jeopardy -- such as double jeopardy. guest: the service members cannot sue the military. you also have certain constitutional rights that are not given up such as free speech. you cannot disclose classified information. we have a number of instances = out againstt speak your superiors. to military tries very hard maintain constitutional rights. you have the right to remain silent. everything about the miranda anhts -- the right to

attorney and the right to remain silent. you have all of that. servicets of individual members are preserve to the greatest extent possible that is not detrimental to the mission. host: let's hear from eugene from new jersey, retired military. caller: good morning. retiree. one thing that always bothered me was the commanding officer could issue article 15, or the commanding officer was judge, jury, and executioner. that is the type of thing that seemed unfair for the uniform code of justice.

that was my question. guest: the military court does not have probation, deferred adjudication. the military has lesser forms of punishment. commands is the prerogative to -- it is the commander deficits sitting in judgment of that person. commanders do have a law enforcement function. on punishment. you cannot receive confinement time. you could have to forfeit some money or be reduced in rank. because ofat, --

ont, there is a cap punishment. you are facing more punishment. tends tole 15 system work fairly well in the military. it hinges on the commander understanding the rules of evidence -- the elements of the offense and being able to apply the facts and to have that article 15 hearing in a way that enables the individual to get their story out and hopefully justice is served. think nowadays article 15 are enders andrews -- career in many cases.

we want them to learn their lesson. i do not see that happening a lot. host: retired colonel lisa windsor was an army judge advocate general and now serves as a practicing attorney. gloria from north carolina. caller: good morning. why hasn't the perpetrator of the massacre at fort hood, why hasn't he been tried? years.been several it is so obvious. witnesses. many what is holding that up? question.t is a good

is the individual physically capable of standing trial? is seat mentally capable of standing trial? then he decided to change attorneys. then there was the issue with the beard. it does seem to go on and on. inhink the victims are angry that case. in military judge was being put on. the message to the military from the appellate court was perhaps get on with it, let's get this person tried. host: james, hi. impliedyou made an

criticism of general franklin's decision to overturn the court- martial conviction of lieutenant colonel franklin -- wilkerson. franklin's eneral letter outlining his reasons for overturning it. --e you read the transcript i think if you do that, you'll understand full well that general franklin did exactly the right thing. let me know. host: why do you have that opinion? caller: because i have read the letter. the reasons that general franklin overturned the court- martial conviction.

you? what stuck out to caller: the outcome of the court-martial was incorrect. host: ok. guest: i think the issue is not whether he made the right call or not but whether he should have had the authority. i think that is what they are looking for here. perhaps he made the right decision. the rules apply across the board. do you want the conneen authority to have this power and perhaps make the wrong call? this is the authority that they .eed to accomplish the mission

that is different from this particular case. i have no doubt general franklin believed that he was doing the right thing. that is not the criticism. broader.cism is much should a convene authority have the power to overturn a conviction in a duly constituted court-martial trial. host: this is the huffington .ost writing about that

host: he has been assigned to a base in tucson. host: let's go to new orleans, glenda. caller: hi. i guess i have a statement and a question. saidad about the -- you about how cases are overturned in the appellate system. had rights taken from them. they cannot speak out against an injustice. there are cases of clear

misconduct in a case, especially when a case happens somewhere else. there was no evidence to convict this individual. with a guilty verdict. there is no way this person could have committed that crime. the military appellate courts charges and these appalled whatever sentence that was sent down. we cannot get anyone outside the military system to do anything. where are the ethics behind these court systems? has rules oflitary evidence based on military rules.

the individual has all of the same rights that an individual that would be tried in the state has. they have the right against self incrimination. aey have the right to hire civilian attorney. a system i think works very well. these are people that are sitting in judgment against you that work for the same organization. they have been deployed. they understand the stressors. they tend to sympathize with the accused. i think anyone convicted believes there was an injustice. the military has a robust appellate system.

to the judgel advocate general of the service under article 69. conviction, but they can grant clemency. so, there are a lot of ads -- a lot of avenues to pursue. even a discharge board with punitive discharge received a court martial, received at a special court-martial at any rate, you really have a lot of avenues that the person is able to go down if they feel that an injustice has happened in their case. cases are overturned. if that happens in the appellate system. if there was an injustice that takes place, a fraud perpetrated on the court, you know, you are thatitely likely to have address at the appellate level.

>> colonel lisa marie windsor, retired army judge advocate general, now a military attorney in practice. one thing that we saw discussed was how much power your commander has when -- if they should have less or if it should be maintained. the vice admiral who runs the judge advocate general of the u.s. navy recently testified that she does not want to see that power get lost. let's listen. [video clip] >> commanders are responsible for the safety, welfare, good order and discipline of those under their charge. my experience has been that take commanders already these decisions to heart. day in and out the try to do the right thing. they're people of integrity. they are a biased by well qualified and well-trained legal counsel. admiral.t is the vice

why is what she is saying it significant? guest: i definitely agree with everything that she said. the power to maintain good order and discipline should rest with the commander. it is their responsibility for the health and safety of the troops and they understand aspects of criminal activity in the military and how that impacts the mission. that is sort of an aspect that you do not see. you may have impact to society for a crime, certainly. in the military you have a position of trust, you have how it impacts the mission. you have people in a leadership position that are not sending inappropriate example. these are aggravating factors in the military case. these are factors that commanders understand. so, i would definitely agree with her.

you definitely want to be loath to start taking that responsibility away from commanders. because i think that you run the risk of undermining the entire foundation of how the military functions when you start to do that. host: we are talking about the military court martial system, in charge of prosecuting 5000 members of the military annually. chuck hegel recently announced that the pentagon asked congress to overhaul the system by scaling back that power that senior commanders have to overturn convictions and dismissed charges. this is a recent "the new york times," criticism. our guest is colonel lisa marie windsor, retired army, serving as a judge army advocate general. john, retired army, hello. caller: hello.

colonel, if i may, i want to speak about article 15. to ale 15, can that be court-martial? what i mean by that is -- do you get one or the other? that is my first question. my second question is -- can article 15 be appealed? i am a commander and this guy was article 15. does thequestion is, commanding officer have to be a devised by jag prior to issuing? i will listen to your comments. thank you, colonel. host: stay with us for one moment. when you said your commander was article 15 happy, what does that mean? >> he was right and left, there was one soldier in my platoon who got sunburned and the

commanding officer was 03, the commanding officer gave him article 154 destruction of government property, and i thought that was over the top. host: let's get a response. guest: i would agree. that was over the top. commanders have the authority to give article 15 and they are not reviewed by legal. it must be an individual appeal. when the service members are 15, they always have the right to turn it down and go to a court-martial. they may choose to do that if they feel they want those additional rules of evidence and constitutional protections. >> take a moment to define article 15 for us again. >> it is called non-judicial

punishment. essentially you have a hearing in front of your commander. you do have the opportunity depleted. you can call witnesses, submit statements on your own behalf, but the only person in judgment against you is this person in your chain of command. you can turn that down because at a higher level you do have those rules of evidence, those greater protections. just adviseto people to come you know, it is a cost benefit analysis. you know. if you did the deed, probably take the article 15. the capital punishment has to do with reduction in rank, forfeitures, extra duty restrictions. you know. so, these are certainly reduction in rank and forfeiture

would probably be the more serious. i would say that reduction in rank is the most serious punishment. can it be to article 15? other than a person turning it down and requesting that themselves, the government can take a case to court martial that has previously been handled at an article 15 level. again, this happens extremely rarely, but this is not considered double jeopardy because you have a judicial system and a non-judicial system. a person could get a letter of reprimand and get an article 15 or get court-martialed at some later date for the same offense. what you do not see is a person being tried and convicted in state court and then in military court for the same offense. >> washington, d.c., welcome.

>> good morning. i am a retired investigator for the army and i wanted to hear your comments. one of our biggest challenges was the judicial system entity offered to the commander. we would investigate crimes that were led delegations the same as we would with our counterparts, but our commander shows to stop the entire investigation. certain violent crimes were separate, but that was the biggest work around, how to get around the commander to the legal system. that is the issue with these current sexual assault and sexual misconduct in the military, it is not for lack of investigations, it is that we never found out about it. it was not released from the unit. thank you. guest: in my experience any case that is investigated -- when i was a government representative

it was called a trial counsel. that was going to hit my desk. has been a determination of whether the investigation is complete, whether the evidence is such that it warrants taking to a trial, again there is always a cost-benefit analysis that takes place. in my experience and the experience of the -- of my range of knowledge of the people that do this type of thing, i think the saudi admiral speak of this. advisers play a big part in this system. every commander has a legal adviser. you want to have a very close and personal relationship with that person, because that is the person advising, you know, is the evidence sufficient for making a recommendation? what level should that case the

handled at? if you have this personal relationship and trust of the commander and legal advisor, then you have a commander following the advice of the legal advisor. i think that that is where you see the system either doing a very good job of prosecuting criminal activity or not such a good job. and i was doing it, i never had a commander go against the recommendations i made. if i recommended someone needed to go to court, to include a convening authority that had a staff judge advocate that was also explaining the case, making a recommendation to them. certainly 99 times out of 100 you will have commander's going along with the recommendations of the legal advisor is. i think, you know, if you feel that there is a disconnect, talk to the jag officers who are

advising these commanders to understand why these cases you feel should be going to court are not. host: our guest, colonel lisa marie windsor served as a judge advocate general from 1998 to 2011. "usa today," showing that more women are reporting sexual abuse today. one out of five military women said they were victims of unwanted sexual contact from other members since joining the military. there is a growing number in congress concerned about harassment in the military. and there is a low rate of criminal complaint against higher rates of sexual assaults recorded in surveys like this one. when you read statistics like that, do you have concerns about service members, men or women coming forward and feeling like their complaints or charges will be taken seriously? troublingt is a very statistic. the first time i heard something

like that my initial reaction was -- where were these reports when i was advising commanders? where were these women that said they had been sexually assaulted? because i was not hearing about those complaints. either the complaints were not being made or they were not bubbling up to the commander lovell. the systemlure of from beginning to end, really. i think that in a lot of cases, really, the victim's fear they will be victimized again. this may be a real fear, it may not be a real fear. i think a lot of times it is a anr that is born out of unfamiliarity with the system and how the victims are treated. in my experience i never saw a victim treated badly in a court

martial. i think that the military has gone a long way to address the these are special types of crimes, that these are special types of victims, and that they need to be dealt with, you know, enhanced sexual assault response programs, now you have postspecial organization that you can go to, specifically to report these types of offenses. of course you are going to have the possibility of some fallout or some criticism in your unit. predators in these types of situations prey of the most horrible. -- vulnerable. the young, women who are brand new to the service. there is a rank issue here. you know? if you are a very young private and are complaining about a senior who has assaulted you,

are you going to be believed? you know? i do think that there is an aspect of some real fear going on there. on the other hand, ok? everybody, the judge advocate's out there, they have seen false reporting. that undermines the entire system, if that is happening. if people are not reporting sexual offenses, they cannot be dealt with. if there waiting for extended periods of time to report the offenses, it makes them more difficult to prosecute. they're difficult cases to prosecute any way because you generally have isolated flirtation with no witnesses, that sort of thing. it very much goes down to the credibility of the parties when they are testifying in court. so, you know, we should teach these glasses and try to, you know, make people understand

that you have been the victim of an assault and you need to try to leave the scene as soon as it is comfortable to do so. you need to go to the hospital. you need to preserve the evidence and report the offense. so. colonel lisa marie windsor, retired army, judge advocate general from 1998 to 2011. we have been talking about a military court martial system. the secretary of defense is calling for overhaul. thank you so much for joining us today. coming up next, the secretary of homeland security, janet napolitano, will appear before the senate judiciary committee in 50 minutes to talk about immigration reform and is expected to take questions about the boston marathon bombing. we will take your calls in just a moment. ♪

[video clip] >> one of the problems when the judge is appointing public defenders is that the job of the public defender is reliant on their approval. judges are judged on their efficiency. how fast to their process cases? how quickly can they get through the dock it? so they will want the public defender that goes along and gets along, that does their bidding. that is a real challenge. in new orleans for a long time the system was also that one public defender was assigned to one court room and the same judge, so there were always arguing before the same judge. the problem with that is that they were then kind of trading clients in a way. like, ok, my private paying spend aif you let me little time and take his case to trial i will persuade them to plead guilty.

there was this sort of trade-off going, like you could cash in your favors on some of your clients and it really made for a very corrupt system down there. >> if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. karen cooper on the right to free representation, sunday at 9:00 on "afterwards." on c-span 2, but tv. >> "washington journal" continues. host: homeland security secretary janet napolitano will be testifying and immigration reform in just a little while before the senate judiciary committee. we will bring that hearing to you live, scheduled to start at 9:30 eastern time, but before that we would like to take your calls on what you hear from the budget what you would like to hear from the homeland security secretary. for democrats, 202-585-3880. for republicans, 202-585-3881. for independents, 202-585-3882.

, thery on fox news republican senators skeptical of new immigration legislation and of the obama administration policy record on border security are getting a chance to question homeland security secretary janet napolitano. she will appear today before the senate judiciary committee on a third hearing for a bipartisan bill to strengthen security and create a path to citizenship for the 11 -- 11 million people who are here illegally. her appearance was canceled last friday because of the boston marathon bombing. her appearance comes after a daylong hearing yesterday that exposed deep divisions on the immigration bill, with republicans arguing that it does too little on border security and some also saying that the measure should be reexamined in light of the events in boston. we will take your calls on this.

you are looking at a live view of the judiciary committee hearing room as we await that hearing getting started. today in theebate newspapers over whether or not immigration legislation should move ahead in light of the marathon bombings. we started the show with that this morning. an editorial from the washington post talks about the boston marathon bomber and another one on immigration stoking fear of immigrants. some in congress trying to use a tragedy to derail perform. here is the tribune newspaper, baltimore sun, a gop debates moving ahead with the immigration legislation. tracy joins us from toledo, ohio. hello, tracy. good morning. caller: i am just calling how can we get the immigration straight at the border?

we get a lot of immigrants and we just want to make sure that we get enough security at these borders. host: what does border security look like or feel like to you? we pay at seems like lot of money for security, but we need more border security. george, republican line, go ahead. caller: this defeats the purpose, beating the minimum wage, if these illegal aliens are working for you? you know what i mean? it defeats the purpose of being illegal. by making them legal you are just going to make them american, they will want more money and everything else.

it defeats the purpose of having illegal aliens. that is my point. taking a vantage of people that come here illegally, making money off of them. once they are here illegally, it is shut down in the system. host: headline today in "usa today." this looks at what has been going on. we mentioned a hearing on friday and a hearing yesterday prior to today's testimony from janet napolitano. reporting, "senators debated the economic impact of immigrants and u.s. workers and the chances of completely securing the nation's border and the merits of legalizing unauthorized immigrants that -- during a daylong hearing on monday, the same day that a poll showed public support for taking action on immigration being strong. in the poll of 1000 adults, 80%

indicated they would back better border control. host: cranberry, new jersey, independent line. go ahead. caller: hello, good morning. not calling these terrorists terrorists? host: say it again? i did not quite hear you. caller: why are they not calling the fort hood terrorist

a terrorist? host: why is that important to you? caller: so that the victims can get their benefits, which they are not getting because it will not call him a terrorist. about the fort hood shooter from back in 2009. he was the u.s. army medical corps officer charged in the mass shooting with 13 counts of premeditated murder, 13 counts of attempted murder. his court-martial proceedings are scheduled to begin later this spring. we are asking you to weigh in on homeland security secretary janet napolitano's testimony on immigration reform. yesterday we saw the hearing as we read from "usa today." and one daylong hearing with contentious moments. here is senator schumer talking

about the republican call for the boston bombing case to delay immigration reform. [video clip] >> offer an amendment to vote on it in may. i say that particularly to the people who are pointing to the terrible tragedy in boston as i would say an excuse for not doing a bill or delaying it for many months or years. >> i never said that. i never said that. >> i never said you did. let me finish. we are going to have the most open process on us. there will be debate within the committee. >> yesterday's hearing on immigration reform. we expect to see the judiciary committee convene again in just a few moments' time. janet napolitano is scheduled to

testify. let's go to donald in hancock, iowa. caller: thank you for letting me make a statement and ask questions of everyone. soonestion would be, how will these be legal's be able to vote? are 31 million or 41 million of them here, what do we do then? caller: what do you think? host: what you think? caller: i do not know. i wish i was a senator. i wish i had harkin's place. anyway, that is my question and all i can say. host: thank you, sam. caller: how are you? host: good. caller: i have a couple of things i want to tell you that we should maybe think about. first of all, immigration.

it is kind of ironic that people who have power and money have immigrants working for them. but when you say you want to penalize employers, people who live in a gated communities hire immigrants all the time. cheapnow they are getting labor. and welfare it is very simple to put a stop on all of the fraud going on. it is women who have more than give youif they would a pass with the first child but any child after that you come and tell them that you do not know who the daddy is, we will not give you any money until you tell us, that way we can get the money from them to solve the problem and we can move on to something else. host: all right. here's a story from nbc news.

he obama items facing new questions with the new debate. for a grand bargain being iffy at best, the second term agenda facing questions and immigration reform. the carefully choreographed bipartisan agreement by the gang of eight has been months in the making and there are fresh concerns about its course forward in the wake of last week's terror attack in boston. the marathon bombings have partly refocus the debate on the risk of would-be terrorists entering the united states. john, md., independent. go ahead. caller: my question is -- if the immigration bill passes what about those who already pay ?axes

and their whole life has been here, what will they do? they're going to try to make them have 10 years with no benefits? if the family has been here for a long time? been part of the system for a long time, what are they going to do with that? host: here is the front page of "the national journal." diego,oanne, san republican. joanne? caller: good morning. i definitely think we should start with this. i have been surprised that over

the last couple of days this has not been discussed in the context of the war in mexico. over 70,000 people killed in the last six years and we barely hear about it. mexico, lawntrol in abiding citizens cannot get a gun to defend themselves. after what happened in canada yesterday, boston, we need to tighten up north america and work on the borders. we had better stop and i would love to have the secretary, the senior al qaeda operatives -- remember, this is a criminal state. i thought that they were woefully misinformed yesterday. they need to get someone in here to say that those branch officers need to get out of the upper east side of new york, because this is very serious for the american public, not being

told what is really taking place. host: we are looking at live images of the senate judiciary committee hearing. we will go in a few moments. slated tolitano is testify. jason writes to us on the facebook page, saying that the immigration host: katie from new york. caller: wildebeest the same financial qualifications for these people to be considered will there be the same financial qualifications? people living at or below the

poverty line that will need government assistance to be living, just be able to survive. you have there is -- to be able to show you can support yourself as a citizen. homeland can see security secretary janet napolitano. caller: what are they going to do about the people that are getting welfare and benefits? how is that going to work? host: question for homeland security secretary janet napolitano. we'll take you there now. it is expected to start in just a moment.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> good morning, everybody. on a tighte

schedule. the secretary has to testify later today for appropriations. fornt to commend you working so hard on the coordinated national security effort in boston. the middle of the night, early morning briefings on what has happened and the way your department, local and state police, the fbi work together is a model for the rest of the world and how quickly everybody was able to move. and theiot day bombing successful capture of the remaining suspect is why you were not here that day. i well understood what your

schedule look like and it was time for you to be in the command post. a number of concerns were not part of the effort for comprehensive immigration reform. we return to testify about the ability of this. to had been here in february testify about this effort. you said you were willing to come back. to reformingment immigration that you were willing to return just two months after last appearance here. in some sleepless nights what has happened in the last few days. it would be easy to talk

about last week. to ask the opportunity you about economic opportunity, immigration modernization act, which is why you are here. this is a member of the cabinet int will be work -- vault implementing this legislation. and i repeat that you and president obama have done more in the first four years to andrce immigration laws strengthen border security than in years leading up to this administration. you have more than 21,000 agents on the border patrol. new technologies have been borders.d to the

therding to the report by migration policy institute, the united states now spends more than it does on all the other major federal law enforcement put together. think it is time to start talking about reforming the immigration system. we're doing more enforcement than ever before. tot should not be a bar having good immigration reform. that weng past time reformed our immigration system. we need an immigration system that lives up to american values. one that treats americans with humanity. the mostshields

vulnerable among us. ourthat helps to enrich committees. formmend several senators their extraordinary work here. are --ncerned that some what some are calling it triggers for getting green cards -- i do not want people to move out of the shadows to the st uck in some kind of underclass. we should not make people's future status depended over a situation in which they have no control. i believe we have to end the

discrimination of gay and lesbian families. i am concerned about changes of families.ystem for whether touestion spend billions on defense is the best use of taxpayer dollars in a country that we are furloughing air traffic controllers because we cannot pay for them. people have been brought to this country by other loving parents. we're creating businesses of their own like google and intel and yahoo!, companies that then

hire hundreds of thousands of americans. our nation continues to benefit from immigrants. my parents inculcated in their children. the function of our immigration system affects all of us. senator grassley. >> thank you for the work you were involved with in boston as well. we welcome you, madam secretary. we appreciate you being here today to discuss the immigration bill. the bill before us is a starting point. the bill is not perfect.

i am encouraged to see that one co-sponsor of the bill is taking suggestions on how to improve the legislation. we hope to have the opportunity to do just that. there are 92 other senators that must have their chance to improve the bill. we have a duty to protect the borders. will notrned the bill secure the border and stop the flow of illegal migration. yesterday i brought up the language in the bill. with theion begins southern border security and fencing. .he undocumented become legal once the secretaries certifies

that the fencing plans are greened and completed, cards are allocated to those here illegally. are put onl workers a different path. today, the bill would put no pressure on this secretary to secure the borders. you have stated the border is stronger than ever before. you have indicated that congress should not hold up legalization by holding up border security measures. subject hasr on the said borders must be secured. short of that, this bill makes the same mistake that we made in

1986. i'm interested in hearing about what problems the build fixes in .ur current immigration system the clearing of backlogs, what does the bill do to fix the system? i'm concerned the bill provides authority to you and your department and your successors .n almost every other pa is language to waive certain provisions of the law. that could add up to 400. the secretary may define terms as she seems fit. there is no accountability for the money to congress.

she can determine what evidence is successful. 1693 inds me of the delegations of authority that makes it almost impossible how to predict the law would work. we have a situation that congress should legislate more and delegate last. ess. i have not advocated that we quit talking about immigration reform. we should carefully review the immigration laws to insure we are addressing critical national security issues. the potential terrorist attacks of the u.s. canadian north are

reminders that our immigration system is related to our national security matters. hijackershe 9/11 overstayed their student visas. people stayed below the radar. it has been reported the older boston bomber travel to russia. entry exitakens the system. it does not deploy a biometric .ystem to land ports we will continue to rely on airline personnel to properly type a name into a computer. if the background checks or anything like they were in the boston bomber, we are in serious

trouble. checks on theund 12 million people who are here illegally are riddled with problems, it raises serious questions about the ability to investigate such individuals. we heard the immigration bill would weaken asylum law. courts are clogged with asylum cases. it is no secret that terrorists are trying to exploit the system. individual whose case was denied based on the one-year bar to get their case reopened. they can still apply despite the current provisions that bars any

relief under the immigration law. the bill provides exemptions for certain criminals, making some eligible under the bill. they may still apply for the provisional status. about the system --the situation about theestimony immigration and customs enforcement agent about the inability of our agents to do their jobs. the group refused to hear from enforcement agencies. it seems unthinkable that law

enforcement would be left out of the room when the bill was put together. deals withthe bill student visas. a terrorism case has come to light that may involve an individual that overstayed their student visa. i look forward to the testimony today. >> thank you. madam secretary, it is over to you. >> i appreciate the opportunity to discuss the need for common sense immigration reform. let me say a few words about the attack in boston. remainughts and prayers with the city of boston.

us here aref committed to finding out why this happened, what more we can do to prevent attacks like this in the future, and making sure that those responsible face justice. we will learn lessons from this attack. we will apply those and we will emerge even stronger. law enforcement joined together and shared resources. many had been trained in improvised explosive threats and many had exercise for this scenario. the response was swift and effective. i think the people of boston showed tremendous resilience over the past week, and so did

america. after 10 years of training and equipment and improved information sharing, our cities and nation are stronger, more prepared and better equipped to face a range of threats. this legislation will build on these gains. thedraft bill captures principles enunciated by president obama in las vegas and reflects the spirit necessary to achieve comprehensive immigration reform. the bipartisan work will strengthen security at our borders by funding the continued deployment of manpower and proven effective surveillance technologies along the highest traffic areas of the southwest border. these efforts have already

reduced illegal immigration. they must be strengthened and sustained. the bill helps eliminate the jobs magnet that fuels illegal immigration. it holds employers accountable and requires the monetary use of employment verification. employment verification supports strong border security. it provides businesses with a clear free and emission means to determine whether their employees are eligible to work here. we promote fairness, prevent and we protect, workers from exploitation. the bill also provides a pathway

to earn citizenship for the millions of individuals currently in our country illegally. many have been here for years and contributing to our economy. knowing who they are is critical to public safety. it must be evidence from the outset there is a pathway to citizenship that will be fair and a tenable. .- fair and attainable dreamers and immigrant farm workers will also be included. those who complete the requirements will be able to achieve lawful status more quickly.

the bill will improve our legal immigration system. visas.ses the cap on thes it continues to protect vulnerable immigrants. it creates new temporary worker programs while protecting american workers. businesses must be able to maintain a stable legal workforce if our economy is to continue to grow. this will pressure on the border and reduce illegal flows. the majority of americans support these common sense steps. we are ready to implement them.

we can and we will achieve the core provisions of the bill. we stand ready to work with the congress to achieve this important goal. the introduction of this legislation is indeed a milestone. i look forward to continue to working with you and to answering your questions today. >> thank you. thank you for a busy time being here. additional one-half billion dollars to build a fence along the southern border. ofhave built 650 miles fence along the border.

a 50 foot wall and i will show you a 51-foot ladder. have doneng would not anything about the case in boston. resources.ited significant gains have been made in the last four years. is half a billion dollars the most effective way to spend limited resources? decides thatgress is where they want to put some money, we will comply. notould prefer having money so designated so that we can look at technologies, they can thatround-based, air based, may be more fitting to prevent

illegal flows across the southwest border. we would not so designate a defense fund per se. we would like flexibility. >> i assume there is an annual maintenance cost. >> operation and maintenance costs. put in it.oles we're very good at building the infrastructure. we know what works better. it is not just building but maintaining. people's lifebout along the border. >> the last remaining mile of the fence has not been completed because it is tied up in property litigation.

historicwas preservation for purposes of the defense construction. this bill also provides waiver authority. what goes into your thinking if you wave that authority? >> it is a careful process. the department's of interior concerning the federal lands that are along the border that grant us access to build infrastructure and those sorts of things. some of the logistical problems have been worked out. when you build a fence that goes to the middle of a downtown area, there are lots of values to be considered.

>> when you were here a couple of months ago, i explained my concern about proposals where citizenship is always over the next mountain. i want the pathway to be clear. i want citizenship to be attainable. severalislation has trekkers that have to be met -- has several triggers that have to be met before people can get their green cards. then they go in a state of limbo. are the triggers truly a tenable? -- attainable?

>> one is the submission of the plans. of as the implementation national employer verification system. one is the implementation of an electronic entry-exit system. triggers ers are -- are already part of the plan. i believe we can satisfy them in the upcoming years. >> in the wake of the boston bombings, month raised concerns about security screenings. i don't believe the boston bombing is a reason to stop progress. i trust our law enforcement people to be able to handle that case. our courts are the best in the wo